We just have to locate and dig up the cover stone and ring from Giza in Egypt, and then steps 1, 2, and 3 will be a breeze.

It's an interesting thing to conjecture. I'm more with Crusaders. If I'm not mistaken, our physicists already know how to make a wormhole. The problem is finding an energy source powerful enough to do it without wiping out the planet.

Well whether you & Crusaders are right and it's a 1,000 years or I'm right and it's only 100 years I'm unlikely to be around to see it happen - unless I splurge and take a long nap in a fancy new cryosleep chamber!

I would point out that back in the day folks experiencing the awesome power of electricity when lightening strikes a tree could never imagine this power ever being routinely harnessed for our use. And yet here we are.

Very cool video! The shots showing the Mediterranean sea in the background are spectacular. As an aside, watching them hook the safety latches in place reminds us that they're doing this work on a knifes edge.

Researchers have identified more than 100 giant exoplanets that may have potentially life-hosting moons.

The new analysis could change the way scientists search for life in the cosmos, study team members said.

That search has generally focused on places more or less like Earth — rocky planets in the "habitable zone" of their host star, that just-right range of distances where liquid water could exist on a world's surface. Jupiter-like planets don't seem like good candidates in this regard, because they have no discernible surface. But the rocky moons of such gas giants may be a different story, study team members said.

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-minimu...-centauri.html
Humanity has long dreamed about sending humans to other planets, even before crewed spaceflight became a reality. And with the discovery of thousands exoplanets in recent decades, particularly those that orbit within neighboring star systems (like Proxima b), that dream seems closer than ever to becoming a reality. But of course, a lot of technical challenges need to be overcome before we can hope to mount such a mission.

Given the time scales involved with such a mission I think the psychological aspects will be the biggest hurdle here.

"Of the 3757 exoplanets that have been detected, the closest Earth-like planet lies at 40 trillion kilometers from us. At 1 percent of the speed of light, which is far superior to the highest velocities achieved by state-of-the-art spacecraft, it would still take 422 years for ships to reach their destination. One of the immediate consequences of this is that interstellar voyages cannot be achieved within a human lifespan. It requires a long-duration space mission, which necessitates finding a solution whereby the crew survive hundreds of years in deep space. This is the goal of our project: to establish the minimum size of a self-sustaining, long duration space mission, in terms of both hardware and population. By doing so, we intend to obtain scientifically-accurate estimates of the requirements for multi-generational interstellar travel, unlocking the future of human space exploration, migration and habitation."

New research suggests certain cyanobacteria could thrive on Mars. The microbes could even be used to provide future space colonies with oxygen.

"This might sound like science fiction, but space agencies and private companies around the world are actively trying to turn this aspiration into reality in the not-too-distant future," Elmars Krausz, chemistry professor at Australian National University, said in a news release. "Photosynthesis could theoretically be harnessed with these types of organisms to create air for humans to breathe on Mars."

... At 1 percent of the speed of light, which is far superior to the highest velocities achieved by state-of-the-art spacecraft, it would still take 422 years for ships to reach their destination. ...[/I][/B]

In this latest study, Sandberg, Drexler and Ord reconsider the parameters of the Drake Equation by incorporating models of chemical and genetic transitions on paths to the origin of life. From this, they show that there is a considerable amount of scientific uncertainties that span multiple orders of magnitude. Or as Dr. Sandberg explained it:

“Many parameters are very uncertain given current knowledge. While we have learned a lot more about the astrophysical ones since Drake and Sagan in the 1960s, we are still very uncertain about the probability of life and intelligence. When people discuss the equation it is not uncommon to hear them say something like: “this parameter is uncertain, but let’s make a guess and remember that it is a guess”, finally reaching a result that they admit is based on guesses. But this result will be stated as single number, and that anchors us to an *apparently* exact estimate – when it should have a proper uncertainty range. This often leads to overconfidence, and worse, the Drake equation is very sensitive to bias: if you are hopeful a small nudge upwards in several uncertain estimates will give a hopeful result, and if you are a pessimist you can easily get a low result.”

Most folks working in R&D can tell you that modeling is more often wrong then right and that a models failure rate approaches 100% as the uncertainty of the data being fed into the model increases.

In the case of trying to estimate the frequency of intelligent life in the Galaxy it is simply impossible to rely on modeling to make anything approaching a reasonable estimate. We don't have enough quality data to feed into the model. This is truly a case of "garbage in, garbage out".

The best we can do is make the assumption that the building blocks for life are not rare; that evolution is not a unique process but a ubiquitous process and that the Galaxy probably holds billions of moons & planets. Add this up and it seems reasonable to guess that intelligent life exists in the galaxy and is probably fairly numerous. But this is still nothing more than a guess and not even a very educated one (maybe wishful thinking on my part)! To apply modeling to this question as if it actually adds something to the answer is absurd - IMHO of course!

The dream of boldly going where only a few have gone before has inspired hundreds of people to sign up with space tourism companies like Virgin Galactic.

But Nasa astronaut Anna Fisher, who made history by becoming the first mother in space, has warned many are unprepared for the rigours of spaceflight and the toll it will take on their bodies.

Dr Fisher said she was sick for the first two days of her mission on the Discovery space shuttle in 1984 and said she was concerned that people paying hundreds of thousands of pounds did not fully appreciate what might happen.

In this latest study, Sandberg, Drexler and Ord reconsider the parameters of the Drake Equation by incorporating models of chemical and genetic transitions on paths to the origin of life. From this, they show that there is a considerable amount of scientific uncertainties that span multiple orders of magnitude. Or as Dr. Sandberg explained it:

“Many parameters are very uncertain given current knowledge. While we have learned a lot more about the astrophysical ones since Drake and Sagan in the 1960s, we are still very uncertain about the probability of life and intelligence. When people discuss the equation it is not uncommon to hear them say something like: “this parameter is uncertain, but let’s make a guess and remember that it is a guess”, finally reaching a result that they admit is based on guesses. But this result will be stated as single number, and that anchors us to an *apparently* exact estimate – when it should have a proper uncertainty range. This often leads to overconfidence, and worse, the Drake equation is very sensitive to bias: if you are hopeful a small nudge upwards in several uncertain estimates will give a hopeful result, and if you are a pessimist you can easily get a low result.”

Most folks working in R&D can tell you that modeling is more often wrong then right and that a models failure rate approaches 100% as the uncertainty of the data being fed into the model increases.

In the case of trying to estimate the frequency of intelligent life in the Galaxy it is simply impossible to rely on modeling to make anything approaching a reasonable estimate. We don't have enough quality data to feed into the model. This is truly a case of "garbage in, garbage out".

The best we can do is make the assumption that the building blocks for life are not rare; that evolution is not a unique process but a ubiquitous process and that the Galaxy probably holds billions of moons & planets. Add this up and it seems reasonable to guess that intelligent life exists in the galaxy and is probably fairly numerous. But this is still nothing more than a guess and not even a very educated one (maybe wishful thinking on my part)! To apply modeling to this question as if it actually adds something to the answer is absurd - IMHO of course!

When that article mentions this:

Quote:

“… one important conclusion we find is that lack of observed intelligence does not strongly make us conclude that intelligence doesn’t last long: the stars are not foretelling our doom!”

and this:

Quote:

While the Drake Equation may not be something we can produce accurate values for anytime soon, the more we learn, the more refined the values will be. And remember, we only need to find intelligent life once in order for the Fermi Paradox to be resolved!

A great story and the best part is that they're back to calling Pluto a PLANET!

The other point on using the Drake Equation to try to predict the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life is that if you assume such life may exist then you have to factor in how advanced it is and what its cultural motivations are. This increases the possible scenarios out to near infinity rendering the model useless. I mean maybe all we are is an exhibit in the zoo of an ultra advanced civilization?

In the last decade, we have discovered thousands of planets outside our solar system and have learned that rocky, temperate worlds are numerous in our galaxy. The next step will involve asking even bigger questions. Could some of these planets host life? And if so, will we be able to recognize life elsewhere if we see it?

A group of leading researchers in astronomy, biology and geology has come together under NASA's Nexus for Exoplanet System Science, or NExSS, to take stock of our knowledge in the search for life on distant planets and to lay the groundwork for moving the related sciences forward.

Well that's the billion dollar question. And it's important to keep an open mind about the potential diversity of life off earth:

"What does a living planet look like?" said Mary Parenteau, an astrobiologist and microbiologist at NASA's Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley and a co-author. "We have to be open to the possibility that life may arise in many contexts in a galaxy with so many diverse worlds—perhaps with purple-colored life instead of the familiar green-dominated life forms on Earth, for example. That's why we are considering a broad range of biosignatures."

The scientists assert that oxygen—the gas produced by photosynthetic organisms on Earth—remains the most promising biosignature of life elsewhere, but it is not foolproof. Abiotic processes on a planet could also generate oxygen. Conversely, a planet lacking detectable levels of oxygen could still be alive—which was exactly the case of Earth before the global accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere.

"On early Earth, we wouldn't be able to see oxygen, despite abundant life," said Victoria Meadows, an astronomer at the University of Washington in Seattle and lead author of one of the papers. "Oxygen teaches us that seeing, or not seeing, a single biosignature is insufficient evidence for or against life—overall context matters."

The Discovery of Complex Organic Molecules on Saturn’s Moon Enceladus Is a Huge Deal

Quote:

Using data collected by NASA’s late-great Cassini space probe, scientists have detected traces of complex organic molecules seeping out from Enceladus’ ice-covered ocean. It’s yet another sign that this intriguing Saturnian moon has what it takes to sustain life.

If life exists elsewhere in our Solar System, chances are it’s on Enceladus. The moon features a vast, warm subterranean ocean, one sandwiched between an icy crust and a rocky core. Previous research shows this ocean contains simple organic molecules, minerals, and molecular hydrogen—an important source of chemical energy. On Earth, hydrothermal processes near volcanic vents are known to sustain complex ecosystems, raising hopes that something similar is happening on Enceladus.

If life is found on any gas giant moon and if fossilized evidence of life on Mars is found - and I would bet that in both cases it will be found - then the probability for life outside the solar system goes through the roof. The implication would be that life is abundant throughout the galaxy and where life is abundant intelligent life can't be far away.

Today, NASA announced that it accepted the findings and recommendations of an independent review of progress toward the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope, intended to be NASA's next great observatory. As a result of some changed procedures and reining in some unjustified schedule optimism, the changes will mean that Webb won't be launched until March of 2021, a delay that will tack on $800 million to the telescope's $8 billion price tag.

It would be nice if the government learned how to hold contractors responsible for this kind of stuff.

The problems come largely from the work of Northrop Grumman, which is building the spacecraft and its sun shield. Incidents detailed in the report include using a solvent to clean valves without checking with the valve manufacturer; the improper solvent damaged the valves and forced their replacement. In another case, managers relied on the word of a single technician that test wiring was installed properly. As a result, hardware was exposed to excess voltage.

In a final case, fasteners for the sunscreen weren't tightened sufficiently prior to testing under simulated launch conditions. Over a dozen of them popped loose, several ended up inside the spacecraft body, and two of them still haven't been definitively located. During a press call today, the chair of the review board, Tom Young, estimated that these instances alone pushed the launch back by six months at the cost of roughly $1 million a day.

"This implies that there must have been a similar hydrological environment with sporadic heavy rainfall events on Mars over a prolonged period of time and that this rainwater may have run off quickly over the surface shaping the valley networks," researchers at ETH Zurich explained in a news release. "This is how river valleys develop in arid regions on Earth."

Yes it is though it's better they delay then screw-up the launch along the lines of Challenger. The link I posted above (post 1070) outlines the issues encountered and indicates that the contractor is to blame. We need to hold these company's feet to the fire when they don't deliver.

It harms the public-private relationship of our current space program and causes PR problems for the spending at all. It just can't happen. $8b for this telescope is criminal. Hubble cost under $3b in 2018 dollars.

Astronauts aboard the International Space Station will be celebrating and relaxing during the U.S. Independence Day holiday. European Space Agency astronaut Alexander Gerst and NASA astronaut Serena Auñón-Chancellor will have to complete some science work in the morning, but after that, all six space station crewmembers will be off-duty, NASA spokesman Dan Huot told Space.com

In the coming decades, NASA and other space agencies hope to mount some ambitious missions to other planets in our Solar System. In addition to studying Mars and the outer Solar System in greater detail, NASA intends to send a mission to Venus to learn more about the planet’s past. This will include studying Venus’ upper atmosphere to determine if the planet once had liquid water (and maybe even life) on its surface.

In order to tackle this daunting challenge, NASA recently partnered with Black Swift Technologies – a Boulder-based company specializing in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) – to build a drone that could survive in Venus’ upper atmosphere. This will be no easy task, but if their designs should prove equal to the task, NASA will be awarding the company a lucrative contract for a Venus aerial drone.

As noted, when it was first discovered – roughly a month after it made its closest approach to the Sun – scientists believed ‘Oumuamua was an interstellar comet. However, follow-up observations showed no evidence of gaseous emissions or a dusty environment around the body (i.e. a comet tail), thus leading to it being classified as a rocky interstellar asteroid.

This was followed by a team of international researchers conducting a study that showed how ‘Oumuamua was more icy that previously thought. Using the ESO’s Very Large Telescope in Chile and the William Herschel Telescope in La Palma, the team was able to obtain spectra from sunlight reflected off of ‘Oumuamua within 48 hours of the discovery. This revealed vital information about the composition of the object, and pointed towards it being icy rather than rocky.

The presence of an outer-layer of carbon rich material also explained why it did not experience outgassing as it neared the Sun. Following these initial observations, Marco Micheli and his team continued to conduct high-precision measurements of ‘Oumuamua and its position using ground-based facilities and the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope.

By January, Hubble was able to snap some final images before the object became too faint to observe as it sped away from the Sun on its way to leaving the Solar System. To their surprise, they noted that the object was increasing its velocity deviating from the trajectory it would be following if only the gravity of the Sun and the planets were influencing its course.

So this weird object is ACCELERATING out of the solar system. Maybe the aliens piloting this ship took a long look at us and decided to get the hell away as fast as they could.

Thanks to the development of modern telescopes, astronomers have been able to probe other star systems to test this hypothesis. Unfortunately, in most cases, astronomers have only been able to observe debris rings around stars with hints of planets in formation. It was only recently that a team of European astronomers were able to capture an image of a newborn planet, thus demonstrating that debris rings are indeed the birthplace of planets.

Why have they warmed up to ultra-cold lunar ice? Water ice can be converted to oxygen, liquid water and rocket fuel. Exploiting the stores of this resource — which is thought to be abundant within permanently shadowed polar craters on the moon — could help pioneers survive and thrive on the moon, and help entrepreneurs turn a profit.

For example, United Launch Alliance is maintaining its $3,000-per-kilogram ($1,360 per lb.) offer, first made in 2016, for moon-derived propellant delivered to low Earth orbit. The satellite communications industry could well be the first market for space resources.

Air to breath, water to drink and fuel to propel us deeper into the solar system will all come from this precious resource.

But there's still a lot to learn:

A decade is the fastest lunar mining could possibly begin, Metzger said: "When you add up the time needed to characterize and quantify the resources, followed by developing and deploying technologies to mine, it takes about 10 years."

That said, the biggest uncertainty is still the form of the lunar ice. The method used for mining this resource depends on what form it is in.

"We don't know if it is primarily 'dirty snow,' or if it is gravel-sized chunks of pure ice mixed into otherwise dry regolith, or something else," Metzger said. "We need to have rovers driving around and drilling on the moon as quickly as possible to resolve this."